tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 08 20:42:07 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Some more questions...
- From: "Patrick Masterson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Some more questions...
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 03:41:53
> >2. There are some words, like cha/peng and ray'/DoS that are different in
> >singular and plural. How are they used with numbers? Is the singular or
> >plural used, or is it like with regular nouns, where you don't need to
> >indicate plurality if there's a number?
>
>That's a very good question. What would you suggest as an answer? :)
Well, I suppose we would have to determine what exactly is meant by the
inherently plural forms like cha. Do they mean simply "more than one," like
regular plural suffixes, or do they mean something a bit more complex, like
"a group of whatevers"? There would have to be something special about the
plural forms if they warranted their own words. Perhaps the reason why they
are grammatically singular is because they *do* mean "a group of," which
would be singular. This could also be why the singular nouns with plural
suffixes, like pengmey, mean "scattered all about;" to differentiate them
from the "group" plural. So perhaps (Hut cha) would mean "nine groups of
torpedoes," (Hut pengmey) would mean "nine torpedoes scattered about", and
(Hut peng) would be your basic "nine torpedoes." On the other hand, in KGT,
Okrand points out that using plural suffixes on inherently plural
nouns--like chamey--is ungrammatical "baby talk." Since numbers already
indicate plurality, it could be said that using a number with an inherently
plural noun would be something similar, and so Hut cha would be something
like saying chamey--"Torpedoeses."
I suppose somebody's going have to ask Mr. Okrand next time they bump into
him.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com